The Drug War Seems to Have Failed

JFrankA · 2nd June 2011, 12:49 PM

Recent post on the CBS website about Global Commission Report who reports that the War on Drugs has failed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...ag=mncol;lst;1

You can even download the report here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Gl...in;contentBody

Personally, my knee-jerk reaction is "Yaaay! Can we NOW do something about this please?" But I'm at work and haven't read the report yet. So what about your reactions and thoughts.

Mark6 · 2nd June 2011, 12:58 PM

"It's the rest of the world which failed! Here in US we keep on fighting!"

Cynically, that's what I expect to hear from pretty much all levels of government.

Monketey Ghost · 2nd June 2011, 01:00 PM

No, they're winning.

Eventually, people will stop wanting to get high and the problem will be solved forever.

madurobob · 2nd June 2011, 01:04 PM

I'm still wondering how Richard Branson fits in with the rest of the folks on the panel. But, I don't disagree with the panel's decision.

Taarkin · 2nd June 2011, 01:14 PM

That's assuming that the drug war's goal is to curb drug use, rather than to throw as many undesirables (WINK NUDGE) into for-profit prisons as possible.

WildCat · 2nd June 2011, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Taarkin

That's assuming that the drug war's goal is to curb drug use, rather than to throw as many undesirables (WINK NUDGE) into for-profit prisons as possible.

Conspiracy theories thataway ------------>

Drugs were prohibited during the temperance movement of the early 20th century, for much the same reasons alcohol was prohibited. You can throw racism in the mix for drugs.

bookitty · 2nd June 2011, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Taarkin

That's assuming that the drug war's goal is to curb drug use, rather than to throw as many undesirables (WINK NUDGE) into for-profit prisons as possible.

The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program.

WildCat · 2nd June 2011, 02:33 PM

We'll continue to fight the drug war if it takes every drop of blood from every last Mexican.

Dr. Keith · 2nd June 2011, 02:41 PM

But then who will mow the grass and pick the fruit?

nota · 2nd June 2011, 02:42 PM

give peace a chance

Mr. Purple · 2nd June 2011, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

Conspiracy theories thataway ------------>

Drugs were prohibited during the temperance movement of the early 20th century, for much the same reasons alcohol was prohibited. You can throw racism in the mix for drugs.

Originally Posted by bookitty

The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program.

To my knowledge racism was an important component of the criminalization of marijuana. I don't even know how to go about documenting this, or back it up with evidence. I am sure the legislation didn't read:
"In an effort to lock up those people, we are going to make marijuana illegal". If I understand correctly it was more heavily used by the black population than the white population.

MikeSun5 · 2nd June 2011, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Mark6

"It's the rest of the world which failed! Here in US we keep on fighting!"

Cynically, that's what I expect to hear from pretty much all levels of government.

Agreed. Our government spends so much on this "war" that the organizations and law enforcement who the "War on Drugs" money goes to will never give those dollars up without a fight.

If the DEA can't raid legal marijuana dispensaries anymore, what on Earth will they spend that raid money on? Don't forget that this is a WAR, people.

What's funny is that people have been saying stuff outlined in that report for years, but now since the "right people" are saying it, the media and governments are finally paying attention.

rjh01 · 2nd June 2011, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Purple

To my knowledge racism was an important component of the criminalization of marijuana. I don't even know how to go about documenting this, or back it up with evidence. I am sure the legislation didn't read:
"In an effort to lock up those people, we are going to make marijuana illegal". If I understand correctly it was more heavily used by the black population than the white population.

Here is a link that backs up your claim http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/...juana-illegal/

Quote:

You’ll also see that the history of marijuana’s criminalization is filled with:

Racism
Fear
Protection of Corporate Profits
Yellow Journalism
Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators
Personal Career Advancement and Greed
These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.

MikeSun5 · 2nd June 2011, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Purple

To my knowledge racism was an important component of the criminalization of marijuana. I don't even know how to go about documenting this, or back it up with evidence.

I didn't see it mentioned in rjh01's article there, but I actually heard once that the reason people started calling it "marijuana" in the first place is because "cannabis" didn't sound Mexican enough, and the powers that be were essentially trying to tie weed to Mexicans. I guess they thought if people believed only Mexicans smoked weed, then it HAD to be evil. Or something like that...

Praktik · 2nd June 2011, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Taarkin

That's assuming that the drug war's goal is to curb drug use, rather than to throw as many undesirables (WINK NUDGE) into for-profit prisons as possible.

Actually this caught me up in an undergraduate Public Law class I took in university. See it's ok for a right to be violated in most western countries if the government can support a genuine societal interest that is served by the violation.

The Charter case law that really fleshed out how this was to be judged in Canada came, interestingly enough, from a possession case over a gram or so of hash. The Oakes Test states that any violation of one's rights must meet the following conditions:

There must be a pressing and substantial objective
The means must be proportional:

The means must be rationally connected to the objective

There must be minimal impairment of rights

There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective

And so I argued, in class, that if the objective of the law was to stop people from smoking hash, then the law was not "rationally connected" to the objective. Evidenced perhaps most handily by the stubborn persistence and long periods of extended upticks in use over the 8 or 9 decades of its prohibition.

But see- I was thinking the wrong way. I forgot that this is really a religious issue.

The objective is not to stamp out drug use - it never was. The goal was "to fight the good fight" in a noble and eternal war.

And once I realized that, I realized my Charter case that was gonna blow prohibition wide open wasn't gonna work on those grounds. I was thinking rationally about a policy rooted in irrationality.

A definite "moment" in my journey to skepticism!

Puppycow · 2nd June 2011, 08:21 PM

Beat me to it.

Another story.

And our lame-o president's reaction is politically safe and predictable:

Quote:

Rafael Lemaitre, Communications Director, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy:

“Legalization remains a non-starter in the Obama administration because research shows that illegal drug use is associated with voluntary treatment admissions, fatal drugged driving accidents, mental illness, and emergency room admissions.”

All those things are equally true of alcohol.

Joey McGee · 2nd June 2011, 08:46 PM

The harm that drugs do is made worse by their illegality, and it prevents us from helping those people effectively. If they really want to cut down on addiction, accidents and illness they should be pro-legalization. What an embarrassingly stupid statement. Rafael obviously didn't read the evidence that was in the report? The evidence points in one direction, their further adherence to ideology will continue to hurt people, but increasingly as more people look at the evidence, hurt themselves politically as well.

MattusMaximus · 2nd June 2011, 08:58 PM

It's about damn time someone in the government actually acknowledges what the rest of us have known for many years. Now, whether or not they actually do something to remedy the problem, that's another question...

Democracy Simulator · 2nd June 2011, 09:34 PM

I laughed at this reaction from the Mexican government:

Quote:

“Legalization won’t stop organized crime, its turf wars or its violence. Nor will it strengthen our security institutions and law enforcement. To equate organized crime in Mexico with drug trafficking is to forget that organized crime commits other offences such as kidnapping, extortion and robbery.”

It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities is a bad idea.

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization.

Organised crime thrives on prohibition, make no mistake about it.

Barsdamian · 2nd June 2011, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Purple

To my knowledge racism was an important component of the criminalization of marijuana. I don't even know how to go about documenting this, or back it up with evidence. I am sure the legislation didn't read:
"In an effort to lock up those people, we are going to make marijuana illegal". If I understand correctly it was more heavily used by the black population than the white population.

Consider these quotes from Harry Anslinger during his campaign to have cannabis outlawed federally.

Originally Posted by Harry Anslinger

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

"Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy"

"Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis."

No racism there. In fact the term marijuana was popularized my Anslinger in an effort to paint the drug as a problem of mexican migrant workers. Prior to that the plant had been more commonly known as indian hemp weed or just hemp.

Puppycow · 2nd June 2011, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by Joey McGee

The harm that drugs do is made worse by their illegality, and it prevents us from helping those people effectively. If they really want to cut down on addiction, accidents and illness they should be pro-legalization. What an embarrassingly stupid statement. Rafael obviously didn't read the evidence that was in the report? The evidence points in one direction, their further adherence to ideology will continue to hurt people, but increasingly as more people look at the evidence, hurt themselves politically as well.

Agreed. The only thing they really care about is what's the politically safe position.

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

It's about damn time someone in the government actually acknowledges what the rest of us have known for many years. Now, whether or not they actually do something to remedy the problem, that's another question...

Er, that still hasn't happened:

Quote:

A high-powered panel of former heads of states and United Nations officials says it is time for governments to find new ways to deal with the world’s drug problem.

“The fact is that the war on drugs is a failure,” former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso said Thursday at the unveiling of a report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy.

Along with Mr. Cardoso, the commission includes former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria, former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, former U.S. secretary of state George Shultz, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan and Canadian Louise Arbour, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Current members of the government continue to play it safe. Canadian, US and Mexican government spokespeople all hand-waved it away. Oh, and calling it a "high-powered panel" is dubious too for the same reason.

Originally Posted by Democracy Simulator

I laughed at this reaction from the Mexican government:

It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities is a bad idea.

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization.

Organised crime thrives on prohibition, make no mistake about it.

Yup. Maybe once they retire from politics and have no power, they will admit the truth too.

keale · 2nd June 2011, 09:59 PM

Originally Posted by Democracy Simulator

I laughed at this reaction from the Mexican government:

It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities is a bad idea.

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization.

Organised crime thrives on prohibition, make no mistake about it.

Well in many places in Mexico the government and the cartels are on the same side and in many cases the same people.

Praktik · 2nd June 2011, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Barsdamian

No racism there. In fact the term marijuana was popularized my Anslinger in an effort to paint the drug as a problem of mexican migrant workers. Prior to that the plant had been more commonly known as indian hemp weed or just hemp.

Ya and I think people don't realize those racist roots... or like to think "we're so past that now". And if you're talking about the people implementing current policy I can actually agree with that: I don't think the current drug czar, or any of the most recent czars, have approached drug use with that same brand of antique racism. Maybe on the lower levels, like street level, you'll see more instances of racism but it's nowhere near as pervasive - or overt - as it was (for the most part).

That being said, the laws surely were rooted in racism - but I would argue the stronger influence was actually puritanical moral absolutism. And that never went away. Sure, the cartoonish racism of a bygone era was discarded along with those decaying generations that propagated it. Yet the burning core of raging morality, steeped in the puritanical roots of America, remained - and still remains to this day.

To my mind its still a glaring irrationality at the root of our drug laws: whether that's a racist irrationality or some misguided application of pious morality, its all flim flam and flawed reasoning underneath. I have difficulty conceiving of an evidence-based position in support of the Drug War - by definition it is a Crusade and a Religious Obligation for those fighting the good fight.

Current Drug Warriors aren't as racist as they were in the past just as society isn't as racist as it was in the past. But everyone is just as crazy!

Barsdamian · 2nd June 2011, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Praktik

Current Drug Warriors aren't as racist as they were in the past just as society isn't as racist as it was in the past. But everyone is just as crazy!

Its interesting how as society changes, the prohibitionist message changes. In Anslingers day it was "Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers". Nowadays its terrorists. Consider this quote from John Walters the US drug czar in 2007.

Originally Posted by John Walters

the people who plant and tend the gardens are terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties.

The message changes but its no less ridiculous.

andyandy · 3rd June 2011, 02:18 AM

Originally Posted by MikeSun5

What's funny is that people have been saying stuff outlined in that report for years, but now since the "right people" are saying it, the media and governments are finally paying attention.

I wish that was true - but i don't think there's any evidence, any report, any peer reviewed data or any body of celebrities or ex politicians who would make even a gnat sized dent in the political status quo over prohibition....

Maybe give it another 50 years.......

Joey McGee · 3rd June 2011, 02:22 AM

The people still run the government, no?

I am actually rather optimistic for a tipping point on this issue.

WildCat · 3rd June 2011, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by Democracy Simulator

It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities and corrupt Mexican officials is a bad idea.

ftfy

ThunderChunky · 3rd June 2011, 06:49 AM

Originally Posted by bookitty

The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program.

A lot of people get rich off of the drug war. Seems they would have a vested interest in keeping the program running.

Earthborn · 3rd June 2011, 07:19 AM

Seems this commission has the right idea...

Quote:

The commission is especially critical of the United States, which its members say must lead changing its anti-drug policies from being guided by anti-crime approaches to ones rooted in health care and human rights.

... oh, well. It was a nice thought anyway. The United States can't even get healthcare coverage for all it citizens it doesn't consider lowlife junkies, so this is a bit much to ask of them.

Originally Posted by Democracy Simulator

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing (snip)

Does anyone seriously think that just because something is legalised, criminals will suddenly stop doing it? I never understood that claim. Is it that crime bosses are going to say: "Oh, no! We can't do anything legal. We're criminals; that goes against everything we stand for!"

GreyArea · 3rd June 2011, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by Praktik

...but I would argue the stronger influence was actually puritanical moral absolutism. And that never went away. Sure, the cartoonish racism of a bygone era was discarded along with those decaying generations that propagated it. Yet the burning core of raging morality, steeped in the puritanical roots of America, remained - and still remains to this day.

I think that's part of it, but I don't quite understand the last step in their reasoning. Is intoxication (by whatever means) wrong because it clouds one's mental abilities to contemplate God? Or is it wrong because it leads to dis-inhibited behaviors and a poor work ethic?

Arguably, only the former reason would be religious/theological. The latter reasons would be, respectively, for reasons of civic harmony and for reasons of industry (in the old sense of the word) versus idleness. I think these would make a stronger case for prohibition than a purely religious reason, if anyone was pressed to spell out the case (which is hardly ever done).

Mycroft · 3rd June 2011, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by bookitty

The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program.

Wouldn't you agree it's at least a contributing factor?

Taarkin · 3rd June 2011, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Does anyone seriously think that just because something is legalised, criminals will suddenly stop doing it? I never understood that claim. Is it that crime bosses are going to say: "Oh, no! We can't do anything legal. We're criminals; that goes against everything we stand for!"

Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?

Mark6 · 3rd June 2011, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Taarkin

Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?

Precisely.

Whenever an illegal trade is legalized, it's not that its former practicioners suddenly quit from some kind of ideological reason. Rather, existing clean safe law-abiding traders pick it up. Criminals can no longer make money off it.

JFrankA · 3rd June 2011, 08:40 AM

Originally Posted by Taarkin

Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?

Exactly. Also, the product at Walgreens would be pure product regulated by the government. Who's going to want to buy a product that might have things in it that is not supposed to be in there?

(I once read, though I can't confirm this, that a lot of deaths from E is because what they took wasn't E, or there was very little E in it, and the death was from the impurities in the pill and not the E itself).

Combine these two things, that makes the product much less profitable for criminals to produce and sell. In effect, that takes the product away from the criminal.

JFrankA · 3rd June 2011, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Mark6

Precisely.

Whenever an illegal trade is legalized, it's not that its former practicioners suddenly quit from some kind of ideological reason. Rather, existing clean safe law-abiding traders pick it up. Criminals can no longer make money off it.

Mark beat me to it and put it more succinctly.

Dave Rogers · 3rd June 2011, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

Exactly. Also, the product at Walgreens would be pure product regulated by the government. Who's going to want to buy a product that might have things in it that is not supposed to be in there?

The same people who buy herbal remedies, probably. Which may have a substantial overlap with the ones who use mind-altering substances.

Dave

IDB87 · 3rd June 2011, 08:48 AM

*ETA this post is strictly about cocaine.

Originally Posted by Democracy Simulator

Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization.

I find this incredibly far-fetched.

How will the government of Mexico A) compete with the established cartels production B) keep their 'legal' distributors (and growers) safe and C) combat the remaining Cartels in a turf war?

Decriminalizing cocaine, even making it legal, will do nothing to slow the production of the Cartels already in place. All you end up with is a government competing with the big boys.

I'm really honestly curious as to what your solution is.

I Am The Scum · 3rd June 2011, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by IDB87

*ETA this post is strictly about cocaine.

I find this incredibly far-fetched.

How will the government of Mexico A) compete with the established cartels production B) keep their 'legal' distributors (and growers) safe and C) combat the remaining Cartels in a turf war?

Decriminalizing cocaine, even making it legal, will do nothing to slow the production of the Cartels already in place. All you end up with is a government competing with the big boys.

I'm really honestly curious as to what your solution is.

Why are you saying that cocaine production would be a government-run industry? Just decriminalize it, and entrepreneurs will pick up the slack.

Most arguments in favor of decriminalization will draw parallels with the prohibition fiasco back in the 20s. I'm pretty sure that most proponents would stick to that model.

Earthborn · 3rd June 2011, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Taarkin

Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?

Will Walgreens decide to sell creepy drugs? Seems unlikely to me, if they would they certainly won't do so without prescription. Many addicts may prefer the more no-questions-asked approach by illegal drug dealers over having to ask permission from a doctor. In the US especially, having to go to a doctor to get a prescription may very well be more expensive than buying directly from someone on the street.

Originally Posted by Mark6

Rather, existing clean safe law-abiding traders pick it up. Criminals can no longer make money off it.

If it worked like that, there would be no illegal market for any legal medication. And yet there is. There is also an illegal market for other legal products, such as cigarettes; often stolen from legitimate manufacturers and sold without tax.

Earthborn · 3rd June 2011, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Why are you saying that cocaine production would be a government-run industry? Just decriminalize it, and entrepreneurs will pick up the slack.

Makes no difference whether it is a government run industry or entrepreneurs picking up the slack. The question remains the same: how will they A) compete with the established cartels production B) keep their 'legal' distributors (and growers) safe and C) combat the remaining Cartels in a turf war?

The entrepreneurs you are talking about may be able to do A, but will definitely need help from the government to do C. And that is assuming there are enough non-criminal entrepreneurs eager to start a business in selling dangerous hard drugs.

2nd June 2011, 12:49 PM	#1
JFrankA Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 4,054	The Drug War Seems to Have Failed Recent post on the CBS website about Global Commission Report who reports that the War on Drugs has failed. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...ag=mncol;lst;1 You can even download the report here: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Gl...in;contentBody Personally, my knee-jerk reaction is "Yaaay! Can we NOW do something about this please?" But I'm at work and haven't read the report yet. So what about your reactions and thoughts.
	__________________ "How perverted you are.", "I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..." - SnakeTongue "More truth is in a single issue of Mad than a year of Time." - Gord in Toronto "Oh, and one more thing: For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - Wise man in Sucker Punch

2nd June 2011, 12:58 PM	#2
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	"It's the rest of the world which failed! Here in US we keep on fighting!" Cynically, that's what I expect to hear from pretty much all levels of government.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

2nd June 2011, 01:00 PM	#3
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,807	No, they're winning. Eventually, people will stop wanting to get high and the problem will be solved forever.
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

2nd June 2011, 01:04 PM	#4
madurobob Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Blue Heaven, NC Posts: 5,548	I'm still wondering how Richard Branson fits in with the rest of the folks on the panel. But, I don't disagree with the panel's decision.
	__________________ Insert witty phrase or out of context post by another member here.

2nd June 2011, 02:21 PM	#7
bookitty Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 5,532	Originally Posted by Taarkin That's assuming that the drug war's goal is to curb drug use, rather than to throw as many undesirables (WINK NUDGE) into for-profit prisons as possible. The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program.
	__________________ No more cupcakes for me, thanks.

2nd June 2011, 01:14 PM	#5
Taarkin Strider Style Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Land of Heat and Clockwork Posts: 1,221	That's assuming that the drug war's goal is to curb drug use, rather than to throw as many undesirables (WINK NUDGE) into for-profit prisons as possible.

2nd June 2011, 01:54 PM	#6
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by Taarkin That's assuming that the drug war's goal is to curb drug use, rather than to throw as many undesirables (WINK NUDGE) into for-profit prisons as possible. Conspiracy theories thataway ------------> Drugs were prohibited during the temperance movement of the early 20th century, for much the same reasons alcohol was prohibited. You can throw racism in the mix for drugs.

2nd June 2011, 02:33 PM	#8
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	We'll continue to fight the drug war if it takes every drop of blood from every last Mexican.

2nd June 2011, 02:41 PM	#9
Dr. Keith Not a doctor. Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 3,251	But then who will mow the grass and pick the fruit?
	__________________ shift key currently inoperative. sorry for the inconvenience. -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Jonah Baldwin: Talk to her, dad. She's a doctor. Sam Baldwin: Of what? Her first name could be Doctor. - Sleepless in Seattle

2nd June 2011, 02:42 PM	#10
nota Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 203	give peace a chance
nota Thinker Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 203

2nd June 2011, 03:36 PM	#11
Mr. Purple Some Other Guy on Some Other Job Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,424	Originally Posted by WildCat Conspiracy theories thataway ------------> Drugs were prohibited during the temperance movement of the early 20th century, for much the same reasons alcohol was prohibited. You can throw racism in the mix for drugs. Originally Posted by bookitty The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program. To my knowledge racism was an important component of the criminalization of marijuana. I don't even know how to go about documenting this, or back it up with evidence. I am sure the legislation didn't read: "In an effort to lock up those people, we are going to make marijuana illegal". If I understand correctly it was more heavily used by the black population than the white population.
	__________________ Everything above is a lie.

2nd June 2011, 03:56 PM	#12
MikeSun5 Trigger Happy Pacifist, Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 1,877	Originally Posted by Mark6 "It's the rest of the world which failed! Here in US we keep on fighting!" Cynically, that's what I expect to hear from pretty much all levels of government. Agreed. Our government spends so much on this "war" that the organizations and law enforcement who the "War on Drugs" money goes to will never give those dollars up without a fight. If the DEA can't raid legal marijuana dispensaries anymore, what on Earth will they spend that raid money on? Don't forget that this is a WAR, people. What's funny is that people have been saying stuff outlined in that report for years, but now since the "right people" are saying it, the media and governments are finally paying attention.
	__________________ I always wondered if those WWJD bracelets worked, so I bought one. Well later, I was on a plane and this little kid was kicking my seat repeatedly, while his sister sang along with her walkman and their mother just sat there. I almost turned around and went off, and then I caught sight of my bracelet. What would Jesus do? So I lit them on fire and sent them all to Hell. --Daniel Tosh

2nd June 2011, 04:27 PM	#13
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Planet Earth Posts: 17,198	Originally Posted by Mr. Purple To my knowledge racism was an important component of the criminalization of marijuana. I don't even know how to go about documenting this, or back it up with evidence. I am sure the legislation didn't read: "In an effort to lock up those people, we are going to make marijuana illegal". If I understand correctly it was more heavily used by the black population than the white population. Here is a link that backs up your claim http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/...juana-illegal/ Quote: You’ll also see that the history of marijuana’s criminalization is filled with: Racism Fear Protection of Corporate Profits Yellow Journalism Ignorant, Incompetent, and/or Corrupt Legislators Personal Career Advancement and Greed These are the actual reasons marijuana is illegal.

2nd June 2011, 05:06 PM	#14
MikeSun5 Trigger Happy Pacifist, Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 1,877	Originally Posted by Mr. Purple To my knowledge racism was an important component of the criminalization of marijuana. I don't even know how to go about documenting this, or back it up with evidence. I didn't see it mentioned in rjh01's article there, but I actually heard once that the reason people started calling it "marijuana" in the first place is because "cannabis" didn't sound Mexican enough, and the powers that be were essentially trying to tie weed to Mexicans. I guess they thought if people believed only Mexicans smoked weed, then it HAD to be evil. Or something like that...
	__________________ I always wondered if those WWJD bracelets worked, so I bought one. Well later, I was on a plane and this little kid was kicking my seat repeatedly, while his sister sang along with her walkman and their mother just sat there. I almost turned around and went off, and then I caught sight of my bracelet. What would Jesus do? So I lit them on fire and sent them all to Hell. --Daniel Tosh

2nd June 2011, 05:27 PM	#15
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,257	Originally Posted by Taarkin That's assuming that the drug war's goal is to curb drug use, rather than to throw as many undesirables (WINK NUDGE) into for-profit prisons as possible. Actually this caught me up in an undergraduate Public Law class I took in university. See it's ok for a right to be violated in most western countries if the government can support a genuine societal interest that is served by the violation. The Charter case law that really fleshed out how this was to be judged in Canada came, interestingly enough, from a possession case over a gram or so of hash. The Oakes Test states that any violation of one's rights must meet the following conditions: There must be a pressing and substantial objective The means must be proportional: The means must be rationally connected to the objective There must be minimal impairment of rights There must be proportionality between the infringement and objective And so I argued, in class, that if the objective of the law was to stop people from smoking hash, then the law was not "rationally connected" to the objective. Evidenced perhaps most handily by the stubborn persistence and long periods of extended upticks in use over the 8 or 9 decades of its prohibition. But see- I was thinking the wrong way. I forgot that this is really a religious issue. The objective is not to stamp out drug use - it never was. The goal was "to fight the good fight" in a noble and eternal war. And once I realized that, I realized my Charter case that was gonna blow prohibition wide open wasn't gonna work on those grounds. I was thinking rationally about a policy rooted in irrationality. A definite "moment" in my journey to skepticism!
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks Last edited by Praktik; 2nd June 2011 at 05:30 PM.

2nd June 2011, 08:21 PM	#16
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,789	Beat me to it. Another story. And our lame-o president's reaction is politically safe and predictable: Quote: Rafael Lemaitre, Communications Director, White House Office of National Drug Control Policy: “Legalization remains a non-starter in the Obama administration because research shows that illegal drug use is associated with voluntary treatment admissions, fatal drugged driving accidents, mental illness, and emergency room admissions.” All those things are equally true of alcohol.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

2nd June 2011, 08:46 PM	#17
Joey McGee Transcendental Naturalist Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,133	The harm that drugs do is made worse by their illegality, and it prevents us from helping those people effectively. If they really want to cut down on addiction, accidents and illness they should be pro-legalization. What an embarrassingly stupid statement. Rafael obviously didn't read the evidence that was in the report? The evidence points in one direction, their further adherence to ideology will continue to hurt people, but increasingly as more people look at the evidence, hurt themselves politically as well.
	__________________ How do I know that this is so? By looking!

2nd June 2011, 08:58 PM	#18
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,182	It's about damn time someone in the government actually acknowledges what the rest of us have known for many years. Now, whether or not they actually do something to remedy the problem, that's another question...
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

2nd June 2011, 09:34 PM	#19
Democracy Simulator Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Oz Posts: 362	I laughed at this reaction from the Mexican government: Quote: “Legalization won’t stop organized crime, its turf wars or its violence. Nor will it strengthen our security institutions and law enforcement. To equate organized crime in Mexico with drug trafficking is to forget that organized crime commits other offences such as kidnapping, extortion and robbery.” It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities is a bad idea. Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization. Organised crime thrives on prohibition, make no mistake about it.

2nd June 2011, 09:39 PM	#20
Barsdamian Scholar Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 74	Originally Posted by Mr. Purple To my knowledge racism was an important component of the criminalization of marijuana. I don't even know how to go about documenting this, or back it up with evidence. I am sure the legislation didn't read: "In an effort to lock up those people, we are going to make marijuana illegal". If I understand correctly it was more heavily used by the black population than the white population. Consider these quotes from Harry Anslinger during his campaign to have cannabis outlawed federally. Originally Posted by Harry Anslinger "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others." "Colored students at the Univ. of Minn. partying with (white) female students, smoking [marijuana] and getting their sympathy with stories of racial persecution. Result: pregnancy" "Two Negros took a girl fourteen years old and kept her for two days under the influence of hemp. Upon recovery she was found to be suffering from syphilis." No racism there. In fact the term marijuana was popularized my Anslinger in an effort to paint the drug as a problem of mexican migrant workers. Prior to that the plant had been more commonly known as indian hemp weed or just hemp.
	Last edited by Barsdamian; 2nd June 2011 at 09:40 PM.

2nd June 2011, 09:50 PM	#21
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,789	Originally Posted by Joey McGee The harm that drugs do is made worse by their illegality, and it prevents us from helping those people effectively. If they really want to cut down on addiction, accidents and illness they should be pro-legalization. What an embarrassingly stupid statement. Rafael obviously didn't read the evidence that was in the report? The evidence points in one direction, their further adherence to ideology will continue to hurt people, but increasingly as more people look at the evidence, hurt themselves politically as well. Agreed. The only thing they really care about is what's the politically safe position. Originally Posted by MattusMaximus It's about damn time someone in the government actually acknowledges what the rest of us have known for many years. Now, whether or not they actually do something to remedy the problem, that's another question... Er, that still hasn't happened: Quote: A high-powered panel of former heads of states and United Nations officials says it is time for governments to find new ways to deal with the world’s drug problem. “The fact is that the war on drugs is a failure,” former Brazilian president Fernando Henrique Cardoso said Thursday at the unveiling of a report by the Global Commission on Drug Policy. Along with Mr. Cardoso, the commission includes former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria, former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, former U.S. secretary of state George Shultz, former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan and Canadian Louise Arbour, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Current members of the government continue to play it safe. Canadian, US and Mexican government spokespeople all hand-waved it away. Oh, and calling it a "high-powered panel" is dubious too for the same reason. Originally Posted by Democracy Simulator I laughed at this reaction from the Mexican government: It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities is a bad idea. Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization. Organised crime thrives on prohibition, make no mistake about it. Yup. Maybe once they retire from politics and have no power, they will admit the truth too.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

2nd June 2011, 09:59 PM	#22
keale Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 813	Originally Posted by Democracy Simulator I laughed at this reaction from the Mexican government: It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities is a bad idea. Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing, which funds a tremendous amount of criminal activity, like kidnapping, extortion and robbery? I can't imagine that too many serious gang bosses would be rejoicing at the prospect of legalization. Organised crime thrives on prohibition, make no mistake about it. Well in many places in Mexico the government and the cartels are on the same side and in many cases the same people.
keale Muse Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 813

2nd June 2011, 10:08 PM	#23
Praktik Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Tee Dot Posts: 4,257	Originally Posted by Barsdamian No racism there. In fact the term marijuana was popularized my Anslinger in an effort to paint the drug as a problem of mexican migrant workers. Prior to that the plant had been more commonly known as indian hemp weed or just hemp. Ya and I think people don't realize those racist roots... or like to think "we're so past that now". And if you're talking about the people implementing current policy I can actually agree with that: I don't think the current drug czar, or any of the most recent czars, have approached drug use with that same brand of antique racism. Maybe on the lower levels, like street level, you'll see more instances of racism but it's nowhere near as pervasive - or overt - as it was (for the most part). That being said, the laws surely were rooted in racism - but I would argue the stronger influence was actually puritanical moral absolutism. And that never went away. Sure, the cartoonish racism of a bygone era was discarded along with those decaying generations that propagated it. Yet the burning core of raging morality, steeped in the puritanical roots of America, remained - and still remains to this day. To my mind its still a glaring irrationality at the root of our drug laws: whether that's a racist irrationality or some misguided application of pious morality, its all flim flam and flawed reasoning underneath. I have difficulty conceiving of an evidence-based position in support of the Drug War - by definition it is a Crusade and a Religious Obligation for those fighting the good fight. Current Drug Warriors aren't as racist as they were in the past just as society isn't as racist as it was in the past. But everyone is just as crazy!
	__________________ “ it has become my conviction that things mean pretty much what we want them to mean. We’ll pluck significance from the least consequential happenstance if it suits us and happily ignore the most flagrantly obvious symmetry between separate aspects of our lives if it threatens some cherished prejudice or cosily comforting belief" -Iain Banks Last edited by Praktik; 2nd June 2011 at 10:11 PM.

2nd June 2011, 10:23 PM	#24
Barsdamian Scholar Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 74	Originally Posted by Praktik Current Drug Warriors aren't as racist as they were in the past just as society isn't as racist as it was in the past. But everyone is just as crazy! Its interesting how as society changes, the prohibitionist message changes. In Anslingers day it was "Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers". Nowadays its terrorists. Consider this quote from John Walters the US drug czar in 2007. Originally Posted by John Walters the people who plant and tend the gardens are terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties. The message changes but its no less ridiculous.

3rd June 2011, 02:18 AM	#25
andyandy anthropomorphic ape Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: up a tree Posts: 8,197	Originally Posted by MikeSun5 What's funny is that people have been saying stuff outlined in that report for years, but now since the "right people" are saying it, the media and governments are finally paying attention. I wish that was true - but i don't think there's any evidence, any report, any peer reviewed data or any body of celebrities or ex politicians who would make even a gnat sized dent in the political status quo over prohibition.... Maybe give it another 50 years.......
	__________________ "Contentment is found in the music of Bach, the books of Tolstoy and the equations of Dirac, not at the wheel of a BMW or the aisles of Harvey Nicks."

3rd June 2011, 02:22 AM	#26
Joey McGee Transcendental Naturalist Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 3,133	The people still run the government, no? I am actually rather optimistic for a tipping point on this issue.
	__________________ How do I know that this is so? By looking!

3rd June 2011, 05:32 AM	#27
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,111	Originally Posted by Democracy Simulator It's almost as if the Mexican government thinks that cutting off the number 1 source of funding for gang related activities and corrupt Mexican officials is a bad idea. ftfy

3rd June 2011, 06:49 AM	#28
ThunderChunky Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 982	Originally Posted by bookitty The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program. A lot of people get rich off of the drug war. Seems they would have a vested interest in keeping the program running.
ThunderChunky Muse Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 982

3rd June 2011, 07:19 AM	#29
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 5,649	Seems this commission has the right idea... Quote: The commission is especially critical of the United States, which its members say must lead changing its anti-drug policies from being guided by anti-crime approaches to ones rooted in health care and human rights. ... oh, well. It was a nice thought anyway. The United States can't even get healthcare coverage for all it citizens it doesn't consider lowlife junkies, so this is a bit much to ask of them. Originally Posted by Democracy Simulator Does anyone seriously think that legally available drugs will not greatly shrink the business of drug-dealing (snip) Does anyone seriously think that just because something is legalised, criminals will suddenly stop doing it? I never understood that claim. Is it that crime bosses are going to say: "Oh, no! We can't do anything legal. We're criminals; that goes against everything we stand for!"
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

3rd June 2011, 07:30 AM	#30
GreyArea Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,000	Originally Posted by Praktik ...but I would argue the stronger influence was actually puritanical moral absolutism. And that never went away. Sure, the cartoonish racism of a bygone era was discarded along with those decaying generations that propagated it. Yet the burning core of raging morality, steeped in the puritanical roots of America, remained - and still remains to this day. I think that's part of it, but I don't quite understand the last step in their reasoning. Is intoxication (by whatever means) wrong because it clouds one's mental abilities to contemplate God? Or is it wrong because it leads to dis-inhibited behaviors and a poor work ethic? Arguably, only the former reason would be religious/theological. The latter reasons would be, respectively, for reasons of civic harmony and for reasons of industry (in the old sense of the word) versus idleness. I think these would make a stronger case for prohibition than a purely religious reason, if anyone was pressed to spell out the case (which is hardly ever done).
	__________________ _{I am the 0.0000000142857142857143% Tradition is a murky and dangerous bog.}

3rd June 2011, 07:31 AM	#31
Mycroft High Priest of Ed Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 16,110	Originally Posted by bookitty The war on drugs disproportionately affects low income families and people of color in huge numbers. But that is the horrible result of a flawed program, not the reason for the program. Wouldn't you agree it's at least a contributing factor?
	__________________ Surely Israel is the party to blame? -a_unique_person I do have Mycroft on ignore, he is pretty much the Matt Giwer of your side. -a_unique_person Palestinian Refugees

3rd June 2011, 08:29 AM	#32
Taarkin Strider Style Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Land of Heat and Clockwork Posts: 1,221	Originally Posted by Earthborn Does anyone seriously think that just because something is legalised, criminals will suddenly stop doing it? I never understood that claim. Is it that crime bosses are going to say: "Oh, no! We can't do anything legal. We're criminals; that goes against everything we stand for!" Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens?

3rd June 2011, 08:34 AM	#33
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	Originally Posted by Taarkin Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens? Precisely. Whenever an illegal trade is legalized, it's not that its former practicioners suddenly quit from some kind of ideological reason. Rather, existing clean safe law-abiding traders pick it up. Criminals can no longer make money off it.
Mark6 Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 4,178	__________________ Gamemaster: "A horde of rotting zombies is shambling toward you. The sign over the door says 'Accounting'"

3rd June 2011, 08:40 AM	#34
JFrankA Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 4,054	Originally Posted by Taarkin Who would buy from a creepy drug dealer in the bad part of town when you could go to a Walgreens? Exactly. Also, the product at Walgreens would be pure product regulated by the government. Who's going to want to buy a product that might have things in it that is not supposed to be in there? (I once read, though I can't confirm this, that a lot of deaths from E is because what they took wasn't E, or there was very little E in it, and the death was from the impurities in the pill and not the E itself). Combine these two things, that makes the product much less profitable for criminals to produce and sell. In effect, that takes the product away from the criminal.
	__________________ "How perverted you are.", "I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..." - SnakeTongue "More truth is in a single issue of Mad than a year of Time." - Gord in Toronto "Oh, and one more thing: For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - Wise man in Sucker Punch

3rd June 2011, 08:41 AM	#35
JFrankA Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Hartford, CT Posts: 4,054	Originally Posted by Mark6 Precisely. Whenever an illegal trade is legalized, it's not that its former practicioners suddenly quit from some kind of ideological reason. Rather, existing clean safe law-abiding traders pick it up. Criminals can no longer make money off it. Mark beat me to it and put it more succinctly.
	__________________ "How perverted you are.", "I will bite you like a serpent. The poison will slowly kill your sophism..." - SnakeTongue "More truth is in a single issue of Mad than a year of Time." - Gord in Toronto "Oh, and one more thing: For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - Wise man in Sucker Punch